Change My View (CMV):

For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view.

Submission Rules

(A)Try to explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+charactersrequired). [More]

(B)You must personally hold the view and be open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or "soapboxing". Posts by throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail. [More]

(C)Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning. Posts with misleading/overly-simplistic titles may be removed. [More]

(D)Meta posts are to be submitted to /r/ideasforcmv. Feasible suggestions that gain traction there may be implemented or posted to CMV for further discussion by the mods. [More]

(E)Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do sowithin3 hours after posting. If you haven't replied during this time, your post will be removed. [More]

Comment Rules

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [More]

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. 'They started it' is not an excuse. You should report it, not respond to it. [More]

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us. [More]

If you have acknowledged/hinted that your view has changed in some way, please award a delta. You must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta. [More]

No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes", for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [More]

/u/DeltaBot will deal with scores, wiki pages and leaderboards, more info on which can be found here.

Please message the mods if you suspect misuse/abuse of the delta.

Wiki of CMV

We have a fairly extensive wiki that stores lots of useful information, such as full explanations of our rules and guidelines, archives (e.g. popular topics), and some general information about the subreddit.

What can I post here?

If you hold a belief and want to invite the community to try to change your mind, make a CMV ("Change My View") post and give as much detail as you can about your position and why you hold it. If you are using a brand new/throwaway account, please also message the mods before posting.

If you want to discuss something specifically related to this subreddit, please post in /r/ideasforcmv first! We use /r/ideasforcmv as a think tank for our sub. Not every idea is possible given the constraints of reddit itself. Ideas that can be implemented will be discussed openly and internally. If we decide that the idea is feasible, we will make a mod post in /r/changemyview. For meta posts, be sure to check our meta post archive to see if your topic has been discussed and concluded in the past.

School assignments

If you've been given an assignment by your teacher or professor to use CMV, please ask the teacher to contact us by modmail first. All we need to know is the name of the teacher, school, and the class. Any student using a new account or a throwaway account can then message the mods, identify the class, and we'll approve the posts. This is on the condition that the purpose of the assignment is for the student to submit one of their own, genuine views, and be open to having it change.

Please do not use CMV to help you gather counter-arguments for a paper or essay. Our members assume you're here in good faith and don't take kindly to being used.

Submission Rules

Rule A

"Try to explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is"

Before this rule was in place, there was a surprising amount of posts that conveyed very particular views with no indication as to why the OP felt the way they did. "I believe such and such is stupid. CMV." - Well, can you tell us why you believe that? Don't make every discussion start with such basic clarifying questions. Provide as much information as possible.

"...(500+ characters required)."

We received some concern from users about several posts not containing enough information for a productive debate to launch. We included rule A so that users can better understand where OP's viewpoints come from and thankfully it has helped some. In order to keep the high quality of debate that more often than not goes on in this sub, we feel that OP should provide a good amount of information explaining their views. In a previous mod post we collected data from the top 250 posts over a one month period, and picked a minimum character count that most users already met. We hope that this requirement will encourage OPs to expand on their viewpoint and thus help users better challenge OP's views.

Please note that links, by themselves, don't count as explaining your view. You're still required to write your own 500+ character explanation of your view. Otherwise people risk attacking a straw man and having unproductive conversations. This may also be considered a Rule B violation (posting on behalf of someone else).

Other forms of filling out the character count of your explanation (e.g. "Adding this sentence to meet the requirement") also do not satisfy this rule.

Before this rule was in place, there was a surprising amount of posts that conveyed very particular views with no indication as to why the OP felt the way they did. "I believe

Rule B

"You must personally hold the view and be willing to have it changed."

This has always been an implicit requirement. You're on "Change My View" after all.

"A post cannot be neutral..."

Neutral posts are banned because we felt they would only really open up discussion for the most popular opinion. Here are some situations to consider:

"I believe <unpopular opinion> CMV" - Lots of direct responses which are all in favor of the more popular side.

"I believe <popular opinion> CMV" - Less direct responses due to not as many people disagreeing, but at least they do show the other side to the argument due to rule 1.

"I'm completely neutral CMV" - Lots of direct responses, most of which are in favor of the more popular side, with the unpopular side being buried under these comments and therefore not very visible. In other words, we feel example 1 and example 3 would end up being very similar posts.

"...on behalf of others..."

Posting on behalf of someone else isn't ideal because users are not discussing the topic with that person directly. This opened up a few problems in the past:

It relied on the OP to not turn the post into a circlejerk. We saw quite a few examples of OP replying with "Yeah! That's what I told him but he just doesn't get it!" Admittedly there was a few times where OP did a good job and replied with the exact responses of the friend, but it wasn't worth allowing this for the odd chance of it going well. Instead, just encourage your friend to make an account.

The inescapable feeling that OP was just fishing for better arguments to use on their friend (who may or may not exist) without even reporting back on how effective they were. CMV is not /r/WinMyArgument.

Please note that links to external content can be considered effectively "somebody else's view". You need to articulate your own view in your own words in order for someone to argue with it, because this subreddit is about changing your view, not the view of some blogger somewhere. This is why they are not considered as being part of "your explanation" in Rule A.

"...playing devil's advocate..."

This basically has the same problems as posting on behalf of someone else. OP is simply saying "I don't believe this, but I want to see your arguments against it." To us, this screams circlejerk and argument-fishing. Playing devil's advocate is more than welcome in comments, however.

"...or "soapboxing"."

The point of /r/ChangeMyView is to provide a forum for posters to have their views challenged. It is not intended for spreading a view that you hold, except incidentally.

Enforcing this rule requires a judgement call on the part of the moderators. We acknowledge that we may make mistakes. If you feel your post was removed for soapboxing incorrectly, please contact the mods through modmail.

"Posts by throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail."

The approved-throwaway rule was added to limit soapboxing on this subreddit. People have often made accounts to post threads with the intention of spreading their beliefs rather than engaging in a conversation with the users. We realize that there are certain topics or situations that require the use of a throwaway, and therefore we will handle these posts on a case-by-case basis.

Posts by accounts that are too new will be automatically removed. Please contact the moderators through modmail to have your post approved.

Please see above for guidelines about views like "people have a double standard about X"

Rule C

"Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning."

A lot of people seem to view this rule as pointless. But it is important for a couple of reasons:

People reading from their front page will know immediately which subreddit the post is from. This is vital, as there is a certain level of respect in CMV that may not be present in other places. If someone is conveying their controversial opinion without including the recognized "CMV" acronym, people may assume this is a closed-minded bigot trying to stir controversy. While this can still be present in our subreddit, the "CMV" reminds users to treat this OP with respect and open-mindedness in order to provide new perspectives. Having no acronym may cause some people to jump the gun and slate OP without realizing which subreddit they're in.

Similarly, we feel there is a big difference between "I believe this" and "CMV: I believe this". At a first glance, one seems to be a closed case and the other is up for discussion. This is important for first impressions on the front page.

Double Standards

Views about "double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation about the double standard.

Most views like "people treat group A like this, but group B is not" are difficult to discuss in CMV, because it's not clear what the actual view is, and therefore how we should enforce Rule 1. Please think carefully about whether you actually care about the double standard, or if your view is actually that the standard or it's application is wrong.

Often, it becomes obvious during the discussion that your real view is "group A shouldn't be treated like this" or "group B should be treated like this". In many cases, the poster actually believes both of these, and is therefore guilty of the very double standard that they are trying to accuse others of. If your view is really one or both of these, please don't use the "double standard" format, because it is very misleading.

If you're certain that your view is genuinely about people having a double standard, very often the argument still comes down to "well, one liberal said this thing, and some other liberal said this other thing, so liberals are inconsistent". Please refer to at least one individual or agency (i.e. an entity that could reasonably be expected to have one standard) that is acting inconsistently. The idea that large vague groups are somehow homogeneous in their standards is an unreasonable expectation and very hard to argue.

Very often, these "double standards" posts don't explain what you think the standard actually is or what you think it should be. Please be sure to describe the standard that you think is being violated in accurate enough terms for people to actually discuss it.

If most of your comments are about how one or the other of the groups is being treated unfairly, that's a strong sign that this is actually your view, and your post may be removed for violating Rule A or B (or both).

Rule D

A meta thread is any thread that refers to the subreddit or its content. Examples of meta threads can be found here. "CMV: I think x about r/changemyview" and "[Meta] I think x about r/changemyview". We now host meta threads at /r/ideasforcmv.

The meta rule was put in place to weed out the less serious meta posts and reduce repeats. Too many people were posting them for effect, and too many topics were adequately discussed previously.

We still see a lot of attempts to make posts along the lines of "CMV has become a circlejerk" or "There are too many repeat topics on CMV". We fielded this to our community in a meta post and were surprised to find that most of our users considered CMVs to be personal, not general, and that repeat topics should not be suppressed.

Meta-posts about CMV having too many repeat topics rank as one of the most repeated topics of all. They handily beat posts about Feminism, free-will, and LGBT issues by a wide margin. Alas, because we remove these topics for Rule D, it doesn't seem that way. "CMV is a circlejerk" is itself one of the biggest circlejerks we've had to manage.

We have found that it is sometimes difficult to judge whether or not a meta post should be allowed or not and we were disallowing more than we felt was fair. As a result, we have migrated to a new system. Anyone can now post a meta thread at any time by going to /r/ideasforcmv and posting there. Meta threads that meet our internal criteria will be reposted as mod posts in /r/changemyview.

Rule E

"Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do so within 3 hours after posting."

Note that a conversation means a conversation. A small number of one line responses that don't address the arguments that people are making will still result in removal. Additionally, OPs who exclusively respond to people agreeing with them doesn't really count as a strong reply. You need to actually engage with people who are countering your argument, not look for people who agree with you and bolster your own.

This gives plenty of time for commenters to see the thread and start engaging with OP. Without a doubt there should be at least a few users in the thread. On the off chance that nobody responds to OP (really, really rare), we can be lenient (because obviously OP needs someone to respond to). If there are < 10 comments, we won't hold it against OP for not responding.

OPs who appeal their removal and promise to participate can have their posts reinstated. Rule E is not a death notice. However, please do not edit or comment on your thread stating you will "respond later." We would prefer that you PM us to let us know you will return.

Rule E is suspended during Fresh Topic Friday. This is because the moderators must manually approve each thread during this time, meaning some posts may not be approved until 2-3 hours after they're posted. Now, if 12-24 hours pass after we approve OP's thread and OP's thread has a decent amount of comments, it may qualify for rule E.

Why three hours? For the super popular threads that get a disproportionate amount of attention, a 3 hour limit is enough to stop the thread in its tracks if OP is unresponsive. The thread will have just hit the front page. If we wait any longer, then new users who see it on the front page and comment will be wasting their time responding to an OP who isn't there.

Comment Rules

Rule 1

"Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments."

Before we had this rule, /r/changemyview often became indistinguishable from what /r/reinforcemyview would be like if it had any posts, and OPs would treat us like /r/offmychest. Think of this as the rule that gives /r/changemyview a reason to exist at all, because without it we found threads turning into circlejerks where replies that agreed with the OP would be upvoted to the top of the pile and drown out interesting arguments that--at the very least--made you think about popular topics in a different light. Without Rule 1, /r/changemyview would be superfluous.

/r/changemyview is here to offer a particular mode of discussion for OPs that want it. If you want to agree with the OP, consider doing it in a reply to another comment, or send the OP a private message.

Our enforcement of Rule 1 includes top-level comments bolstering or expanding OP's position when such arguments don't actually challenge their posted view.

For example, if an OP is arguing "Gay marriage should be legal," the response "You're wrong, because gay marriage and polygamy should both be legal" would violate Rule 1. That comment does not rebut the OP's point, only augments or elaborates upon it. A direct response that says "You're wrong, the government should be out of marriage entirely because then gay people could form a union" would violate Rule 1 for similar reasons.

We allow direct responses to challenge minor aspects of the OP's argument, but we do not allow posters to use technicalities or nods to disagreement as a means to 'get their foot in the door' and then devote their response to agreement or augmentation like the above.

For example, if OP argues "Andre the Giant was right; nobody should start a land war in Asia," the response "Actually, Vizzini said that. Also, here is a laundry list of reasons why we still shouldn't start a land war in Asia" would violate Rule 1, but "Actually, Vizzini said that." (with more wording to avoid low effort) is acceptable.. The 'however minor' phrase is designed to allow posters to pick on flawed nuances and wrinkles in an OP's argument. It is not intended to allow users to make their rebuttal a minor portion of the comment in order to protect a post where the majority of substance is actually in agreement with the OP.

Rule 2

"Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid."

Would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they're sick? Would you enter an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk? Would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long-haired hippies?

Imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed. /r/changemyview is meant to be that place. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in ChangeMyView, then you're being just as, if not more, unproductive. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out. (Here's some more info on controversial threads).

A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. Don't like the view? Want to change it? What do you think is more likely to do that - being polite and civil, or rude and hostile? If anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.

The CMV moderators do not remove posts or comments for advocating or criticizing any view or opinion, no matter how political or controversial. If your comment was removed for a Rule 2 violation, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". Some examples of this are known as ad hominem, however, to be precise, you're not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.

S/HE STARTED IT ISNOTAN EXCUSE TO VIOLATE RULE 2. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report the comment. Retaliatory comments - your being rude/hostile to another use because they were rude/hostile to you first - will be removed and the violating user will receive a warning. No exceptions.

Attacks on public figures/institutions/categories of people are fair game and you can use whatever language you wish (this is not a G-rated sub), but other users and public figures who are participating as users in this sub are off limits.

While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user.

A very common reason that comments are removed is implying or stating that someone "lacks reading comprehension" (or is failing to use it). To be clear, this (and other forms of passive or active condescension) are prohibited by Rule 2.

We deliberately avoid removing posts and comments if the only reason is that the view presented is offensive or controversial itself. We also can't remove comments just because the argument is made badly, is inaccurate, or contains logical fallacies. Doing otherwise would suppose that we were somehow the ultimate arbiters of truth or correctness, which we aren't. If you're rude and hostile to someone arguing that it's okay to eat babies, but they're otherwise being civil, then much as it pains us, we'd have to remove your comment and not theirs. The goal of this sub is to have you, the user, point out the problems with another user's comments. The mods are only empowered to break up verbal fistfights.

We will reinstate comments if you edit them to "attack the argument, not the person" and send a message to the mods to alert us to the changes.

Rule 3

"Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions. If you think they are exhibiting un-CMVish behavior, please message the mods."

We get a lot of controversial and deeply held views here. Accusing closed-mindedness (unless you have serious reason to believe so) is not for when people need more convincing than others. Similarly, don't automatically assume someone with a controversial view is trolling you.

"To a worm in horseradish, it thinks there's nothing sweeter" - ancient Yiddish proverb. Even if someone's view seems absurd, they may come from a culture or community where it's perfectly normal. They may also not yet have insight into the world outside of the horseradish they've always known until now. Think of this as your opportunity to introduce the worm to applesauce. After all, they did come to a sub called ChangeMyView, so half of your job is already done: the job of getting them to consider that there might be other possibilities. Be their tour guide.

Please note that only the original poster is actually required by the rules to have an open mind. The reason that this rule also prohibits accusing others of this is that ad hominem accusations that address the person making the argument rather than the argument itself don't really advance the conversation.

Rule 4

"If you have acknowledged/hinted that your view has changed in some way, please award a delta. You must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta."

This rule covers two things:

You must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment. We can't force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one. Instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar. Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion. A delta =/= end of discussion.

You must include an explanation as to why and how your view has changed. Particularly if the comment concerned covers many points, some of which may have stood out to you more than others. This part of the rule is an attempt to prevent the meaning of deltas from being "watered down", and also help any readers understand or skim through arguments. Perhaps it can be seen as a TL;DR for a successful discussion.

Reply to the comment that helped you see things in a new way with a "∆" and our friendly /u/DeltaBot will log this achievement in a user's flair, update their individual wiki page and potentially update the leaderboard that appears in our sidebar. Consult the sidebar for a few ways of typing this powerful and elusive character, or follow this picture guide.

While it is not required, it's also a good practice to go back and edit your OP to mention how your view has been changed. This makes it easier for people to focus their new responses on parts of your view that still remain, or at least not to waste time crafting a lengthy argument about the view you've changed.

Rule 5

"No 'low effort' posts. This includes comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes". Humor and affirmations of agreement contained within more substantial comments are still allowed."

In order to keep comments relevant to the discussion, we added this rule so users can report posts that don't add anything useful to the thread. Hopefully as the subreddit becomes larger, we can keep things on topic!

Examples of low effort comments:

Reaction gifs, meme posts, and puns.

"lol", "this", "FTFY", etc.

Posts that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation.

Also, this circlejerking will be removed:

The moderators reserve the right to remove rule 5 comments at our discretion without notification.

Posts which are nothing but a link or a copypasta also count as low effort. A short summary saves people lots of time.

Enforcement

These rules are enforced in accordance with the moderation standards. We highly recommend visiting this page to understand our approach to moderating and how these rules are supposed to work in practice.